Will i5 4460 and R9 270X be a good pair.?

abhijeet lamsar

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
45
0
4,560
I am building a new gaming rig.
My CPU is a Core i5 4460 Haswell.
I am thinking of Buying an MSi R9 270X to pair it with.
Will there be any possible bottlenecks.

If there is any bottleneck please tell me a GFX card in this price range only.

I am only 15 y/o.

thanks!!!!!!!!!!!! 😀
 
IMO yes this will give you a good gaming experience but others will say you should maybe spend double on GPU to what you spend on CPU. but a good CPU will last 4/5 years so you can upgrade GPU in that time or even crossfire
 
The CPU you have chosen is very good. It will allow you to run 60 FPS in any game.
The graphics card limits you detail settings, but you can still run at 60 FPS with the right settings so I wouldn't call either a "bottleneck".
You will also need 8GB of RAM and a 64-bit operating system to run the top tier games coming out.
The R9 270X will give you medium to high settings in most games.

If you want high to ultra settings, you need a faster graphics card.
Personally I think the R9 270X will serve you pretty well and is probably the best choice in your budget.
Better cards:
GTX 960 - 2GB of VRAM like the R9 270X but faster
R9 280X - 3GB of VRAM and faster again
GTX 970 - 4GB of VRAM (best performance under 3.5GB) and faster again
R9 290X - 4GB of VRAM and faster again
GTX 980 - 4GB of VRAM and faster again

As you go down this list, you can shoose higher settings and keep the same frame rate, but the cost increases as you go down as well.
 
i5 4460 and r9 270x user here

To OP, if you plan to game at 1080p and don't have plans increasing resolution soon the pair will do very good. But if you are gaming at 1440p or higher, i would suggest getting stronger gpu like 280x or gtx 960 for nvidia games.

My setup can run very high to ultra in 1080p(most of my games on ultra) i just adjust AA or ambient occlusion w/ vsync off and i get 40+fps average
If you want to max out all textures and AA i suggest min gpu is r9 280x or gtx 770
 
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/sknvRB
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/sknvRB/by_merchant/

Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 280 3GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($164.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $164.99

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/4T8wpg
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/4T8wpg/by_merchant/

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280X 3GB Video Card ($192.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $192.98

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/smbfGX
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/smbfGX/by_merchant/

Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card ($199.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $199.99


I would get the 280x if you can afford it.
 
Real world gaming performance puts it on par with the 280/285 and behind the 280x.

Actually most benchmarks I've seen indicate what I am saying.

Here is a loosely based review talking about the upcoming 960ti and showing where the 960 stands.

http://wccftech.com/gtx-960-ti-benchmarks-specs-revealed/
 


Tom's Hardware used the R9 285 in benchmarks for the GTX 960 review, and these show the GTX 960 is faster.
The R9 280X is an older card, but it is quite a bit faster than the R9 285 and it has 3GB of VRAM.
I think the R9 280 is a more difficult comparison since the GPU is slower than the GTX 960 but 3GB of VRAM may help in some situations.

I don't think you will be disappointed with the GTX 960. It will easily give you medium settings in games at 1920x1080 and higher settings in many games.

It really depends on your budget. This was the list I replied with earlier:
GTX 960 - 2GB of VRAM like the R9 270X but faster
R9 280X - 3GB of VRAM and faster again
GTX 970 - 4GB of VRAM (best performance under 3.5GB) and faster again
R9 290X - 4GB of VRAM and faster again
GTX 980 - 4GB of VRAM and faster again
 


Further down the list you go, the better these are.
GTX 960 - http://www.snapdeal.com/product/zotac-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960/1655509895
R9 280X - http://www.snapdeal.com/product/sapphire-vaporx-r9-280x-3g/277971936
R9 290 - http://www.snapdeal.com/product/sapphire-r9-290-4g-gddr5/1857989423
GTX 970 - http://www.snapdeal.com/product/msi-nvidia-4gb-gtx-970/1268912969
GTX 980 - http://www.snapdeal.com/product/zotac-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980/76541480
 


Any Kepler, Maxwell, or GCN architecture gaming GPU with 24 or more ROP's can play any game made at 1080P, 60FPS in GPU bound conditions. An R9 280 or similar is nice for running higher visual quality settings but is is not necessary for any performance reason.

--------------


Any CPU and GPU combination can be viable if it meets the performance and visual quality goals for the build, but to say that an i5 guarantees no bottlenecks is ludicrous. Any CPU can bottleneck any GPU under the right conditions, and even overclocked haswell i7's will be the performance bottleneck in many popular compute intensive games, like World of Tanks, World of Warcraft, SC2, Robocraft etc.

-------------


Even an i7-4790K overclocked to 5ghz can not guarantee 60FPS in all games.

The graphics card limits you detail settings, but you can still run at 60 FPS with the right settings...
This is correct, any modern gaming GPU is never a hard cap on performance, visual quality is always vastly adjustable to accommodate differences in render throughput available.

----------------



The price difference is only $20, not $40... and GPU bound benchmarks don't tell the whole story. IMO Nvidias DX11 optimizations are worth that extra $20 for many gamers in this price class of GPUs. In compute bound conditions Nvidias DX11 implementation and optimizations buys an average 25% better minimum FPS.

GTX960 advantages:
Better minimum FPS in compute bound DX11 games and viewports (like WoW, or AutoCad.)
Better compute efficiency
CUDA support

R9 280 advantages:
10% less expensive
Mantle support
3GB VRAM (instead of 2GB)
Better minimum and maximum FPS in openGL games and viewports (like minecraft, or ArchiCad).
 

Clearly a CPU can never guarantee a frame rate, this is going to be dependent on the graphics card and detail settings as well as the CPU. What I am saying is that this CPU will not limit the system to less than 60 FPS. I'm happy for you to post a link to a benchmark that shows a situation where a system with this CPU cannot meet average 60 FPS but that a system with a different CPU and the same graphics card and detail settings can meet average 60 FPS.
 

Actually the CPU performance does indeed wind up setting the hard limits on FPS.

What I am saying is that this CPU will not limit the system to less than 60 FPS.
There is no CPU made that can maintain over 60FPS in all gaming conditions. Yes, even an i5 haswell will dip below 60FPS in some conditions in some games.

At 5ghz, a haswell i7 will dip to as low as ~40FPS in WoW Raids, 20FPS in Tier 10 RoboCraft Battles, and less than 60FPS in many other mulit-player RTS, war, and simulation games in severely congested conditions or with very high view distances active. In these same conditions, the i5-4460 will dip ~30% lower. GPU selection and detail settings are largely irrelevant here as these CPU bound performance limits can not be overcome by any GPU or visual quality setting options (the exception to this is where different API implementations and optimizations effect compute bound performance). A GPU can not render frames for which there is no base data for. Performance originates with the CPU.

I'm happy for you to post a link to a benchmark that shows a situation where a system with this CPU cannot meet average 60 FPS....
The conditions that cause even high end CPU's to bottleneck performance to <60FPS, are not readily benchmark-able because they are not repeatable. They are typically multi-player conditions that could never be replicated precisely enough to generate an accurate benchmark.

If you want to find this information for multi-player performance, we have to turn primarily to user reports in game forums who run FPS monitoring software while playing MP games.

There's a bench-marking "bubble" that many hardware enthusiasts get sucked into. It's a vortex of misinformation because it contains almost entirely single player test sequences that are largely GPU bound. This benchmarking bubble is not representative of real multi-player performance characteristics. The benchmarking "bubble" also has the effect of causing those who focus on it, to associate GPU render performance with FPS performance, rather than visual quality. This is a common mistake because when comparing GPUs, review sites use FPS as the yardstick to compare render throughput of GPUs, but in actual implementation, users will adjust visual quality to achieve their FPS goals anyway, so GPU render throughput winds up manifesting as a difference in visual quality, not FPS.

Most CPU benchmarks of multi-player games are not performed in heavily congested conditions. but there are a few places that have figured out methods that seem to generate somewhat useful results...

but that a system with a different CPU and the same graphics card and detail settings can meet average 60 FPS.
I fail to see why I should placate to this ex post facto requirement, but hey...

http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

Note, that when running AMD's DX11 implementation, the i5-4440 achieves a minimum 44FPS in BF4 MP (in this particular test), while the overclocked i7 maintains over 60FPS.

------------

To be clear, any i5 haswell is a fantastic value gaming CPU, these are close to as good as it gets for gaming. The point I am making here, is that there is no CPU choice that guarantees bottleneck free operation and 60+FPS in all games and conditions, it does not exist.